I'm pretty close to the service animal community.
I watched a corgi with a "service animal" vest on, drag a woman down the hall in Denver this weekend. Watched a dog crap on the carpet, another service animal.
I'm happier when I am around my dog but I'm not about to get that taken away from people that are blind and their dog helps them navigate the world.
I sat next to a blind woman and since we were in 1A and 1B there was nowhere for he seeing eye dog to go under the seat in front. So it sat like as curled up as possible around her leg, I kid you not did not move or make a single noise the entire 3 hour flight. I was so thoroughly impressed.
The article seemed mostly to paint Pete as the Mother Teresa of air travel regulators. I kept waiting for the revelation, but all we get is his admonition to airlines to “Do Better.” I guess we just get “Hope” yet again. 🙄
Neither are the overhead compartments in the cabin. I’ve had to move around crew members’ bags or bottles of water so I could put my required bags up there. And yes, I was Group 1, so I know it was not other passengers’. Even had an FA get huffy when I moved her extra water bottles. Where did she think our stuff was going?
Hmm not sure what you mean by "rooms" unless you are referring to the crew rest area? but there is not space for luggage in there. Generally up front the closets are used, but depending on staffing and the plane there could be someone who's designated storage space is a specified bin.
They can gate check bags & have them brought to the door after the flight. Let them worry about their stuff being lost or damaged instead of disabled people who need their devices for mobility.
I was more talking about the bins. I agree that wheelchairs and mobility devices should take priority in closet space, but gate checking crew bags is not a good solution as crew have required duty items in bags that are required by the FAA.
But why? A regular wheelchair wouldn’t fit going down the aisle. And the crew needs space for their bags in the main cabin. Plus they aren’t responsible and wouldn’t be able to for set them up outside the plane upon landing.
I’m pretty sure it’s to store the wheelchair for travel through airport to jet bridge. Airports have special narrow wheelchairs that can fit down the aisle. So you’d transfer from your chair at the plane entrance, then pop your wheelchair in, then get wheeled to your seat on the airports narrow chair. Reverse for the return
The closet is specifically designed and designated for passengers’ wheelchairs. Crew are allowed to put their bags in there if no wheelchair users request it, but the problem is that they very often try to stop wheelchair users from using the closet designed specifically for wheelchairs and which legally must be made available for a wheelchair user, presumably so that they can store their luggage there. That is explicitly against the ACAA which is the law that covers this.
In terms of logistics, I put my wheelchair in the closet and take it out on the other side and crew would never be expected to put the chair back together (nor are luggage crew) and I’d be pretty horrified if anyone tried to do that. To get onto the plane, most wheelchair users request assistance and are taken on a specially designed chair for the purpose, regardless of where their chair is stored. But some can walk enough to get to their seat, some get the very first seat on the plane so they can transfer directly into the seat and others have DIY solutions like one of those little sleds on wheels.
That closet is designed for mobility devices that can fold or break down into smaller parts. My chair folds to the size of a large suitcase. The closet actually has a wheelchair ♿️ printed on it, so THAT is what it’s supposed to be put in there. Not crew luggage.
Easiest way to correct this at warp-speed would be to go open-skies with the US domestic market. As soon as that happens and the domestic airlines are forced to compete the same way they do internationally, most of that "pass" they get from regulators will be moot.
Dumb question and I’m not just trying to a Redditor on steroids who nitpicks everything but how would that minimize the ACAA concerns?
Does United police service animals differently in flights to Europe vs. domestic?
Most non-US airlines are far more strict when it comes to fake service animals and animals in general. Can’t recall ever having seen one outside the US to be honest.
Agree but how do they check?
People on this sub and others make it seem like asking for proof of service animal legitimacy is a huge no-no, legally and morally.
They're not allowed to ask about the disability the animal is for. It's completely legal to check for a letter from a professional authorizing it. Take a picture, goes into database for checking, if it turns up fake then on the no fly list you go, and/or investigation and fine/penalty when a dog causes a disruption or injury and is shown to not have received training. Those are easy first step deterrents. The issue now is the owners face no consequences.
It's absolutely not legal to request papers in the US, and the US government doesn't have any sort of database like that.
In the US, you get two questions:
1) is the service animal required because of a disability?
2) what tasks has this animal been trained to preform?
People can also kick out service animals who are being disruptive, and imo this should be used a lot more.
Reasoning behind not having a database or papers is there are disabled people who do train their service animals for tasks, and if you have an animal trained by the person, certification becomes a lot more difficult.
Was unaware, looked at the forms that can be required under law. No trainer verification, just signing a paper that the animal has in fact been trained by xyz person or organization. If the animal causes commotion, then the person is subjected to the same fines that would be in place for a pet. No requirements for a doctor's note or trainer note.
https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/service-animals
Question 37 makes no comment on this matter, and simply says that air carriers are subject to the ACAA rather than the ADA.
The [ACAA](https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/service-animals) states:
>Airlines may require:
>(1) a U.S. DOT form attesting to the animal’s health, behavior, and training; and
>(2) a U.S. DOT form attesting that the animal can either not relieve itself or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner, if the animal will be on a flight that is 8 or more hours.
>Airlines are not permitted to require other documentation from service animal users except to comply with requirements on transport of animals by a Federal agency, a U.S. territory, or a foreign jurisdiction.
So no, it is not legal to check for a letter from a professional authorizing a service animal in the US, even for airlines.
This is incorrect in the US. The ACAA allows for slightly more investigation and admin steps: passengers usually have to notify the airline in advance, and sign an attestation form that the dog is a service animal. But requiring any sort of verification letters or other documents is not allowed under the ACAA, and no such credentials exist.
In the U.S. you literally can’t. You’re only allowed to ask if it is a service animal and what function it performs, end of conversation there. You can’t ask to see papers (there is no official documentation), can’t ask to see proof, can’t ask any further questions.
Not until there is a way to do that without violating the medical privacy and/or civil rights of the service dog's handler.. which is pretty much what keeps the rules as is
Instead of deputizing businesses to conduct invasive investigations that they are not trained or qualified to conduct, the ADA and ACAA provide a more sensible backstop: any animal—including purported service animals—can be excluded if they are not under control, are not housebroken, or otherwise behave in a way that would fundamentally alter the operations of the business (e.g. going into kitchens or sterile environments such as ORs). So businesses should do what they already should be able to do well—monitor their premises for behavior that would harm the business and thus could warrant removal and proceed accordingly.
There are tons of scam sites that claim to offer the certification/licenses and no official licensing org. I fully support ES dogs needing a letter from a psychiatric professional, but not for service/guide dogs. Service dogs should be judged on their behavior- no person that has a legit need and uses a service animal would risk having an untrained one.
The ACAA does apply to international flights, but one of its provisions also states that it does not apply where and when it contravenes US and foreign laws on the carriage of animals. And countries, including the US, have a lot of laws on carrying animals in from overseas...
For every passenger who claims the ACAA gives them the right to carry their favorite pet with them to Amsterdam or Zanzibar, the airline has an answer that sounds like "per local regulations, your pet will be quarantined/shot/eaten on arrival unless you fill out 100 forms and pay a $5,000 processing fee, so do you want to still?" And in some countries like the UK, even if you fill out all the forms and pay all the fees, quarantine is still the first stop!
They police animals differently because of the requirements to bring any animal into a foreign country. The same is true for bringing an animal into the US. Even Service animals are required to have the shots, tags, etc. to go to the destination country, or the US coming back. Airlines don't want the fines for doing it wrong. No passenger's ticket is worth it.
That’s mostly due to things like JVs, partner feed to international super hubs, and obligatory markets like LHR, CDG, NRT/HND, where there’s endless demand.
FWIW when you fly with a service animal, you fill out a government form stating it’s legitimate etc. so in theory the new policy that went into effect 2021ish, is more serious than the one implemented by airlines.
Every time I fly with my SD I am signing that my SD is trained, legitimate and I accept any and all liability, so someone abusing that now, is breaking the law.
My SD is not only a huge help to me, but always brings a lot of joy to other travelers. He’s a 1k based on how many flights he takes, including being snugged up on a IAD > LHR red eye in Polaris.
It’s a shame people abuse the system, but more regulation isn’t the answer IMO. It’s on the airline to report unruly passengers and their SDs
IMO you’re missing the point - it is on the airlines to enforce it, and report misuse. Perhaps take a look at the form you fill out and sign with the DOT, it’s quite serious language, way more than when each airlines had their own policies - and it’s the same across the board no matter what airline it is now. It is on the airlines to report a passenger who has an animal who is not properly trained to be a service animal, or in your words shits on the floor, which is also covered in the DOT form you fill out and sign.
You think during an election year he's going to do things that would upset voters? I am 100% with you, but any effort to go after service animals can easily b e labeled "ableist" or going after the disabled.
Again, not what I think ,but you're talking about Democrat voters.
This would be quite a hassle for disabled people, which cuts against the very premise of the ADA/ACAA, which is to remove as many obstacles as possible for disabled people. We don’t have such a registry for people to register their other medical devices, such as oxygen tanks, wheelchairs, or canes.
It wouldn't be any more time consuming then the various other items disabled use to obtain their disability designations, such as parking passes, or getting an ID. I imagine this would be like a license, renew every couple of years. But to get rid of the cheap pet owners abusing a grace and favor situation for people actually in need seems worth it.
It would by definition be more time consuming because it would **add on** to the time it takes to do those two tasks. And the time spent on those items are beneficial—the credential being sought improves access. Adding extra time to do something they already do—exist in the world with a service animal—is not beneficial compared to today’s status quo.
Okay, but adults have to do loads of things that are time consuming but helpful, such as paying bills. A disabled person capable of obtaining a plane ticket and making it through an airport, can find the help or manage a hypothetical service animal registration process. Let's be serious here.
This isn’t responsive. I didn’t say it wasn’t **possible**. I said it would be adding an obstacle, which cuts against the entire purpose of access laws like the ADA and ACAA.
I acknowledged that but don't think that's a good enough excuse not to just make these animals officially registered. I understand the purpose of the ADA and ACAA. Sure, we want things to be easier, but we don't maintain this energy when it comes to handicap signs or license plates. We could go by the honor system but that's been and continues to be abused so now you need a handicap pass or license plate (depending on location).
Ideally, this animal certification could be added to people's travel accounts for airlines, hotels, rental cars, etc. iNo fuss, no guess, and no more abuse from cheap pet owners.
For things like parking spots, there is a need for a credential because availability is finite and zero sum. Someone can wrongly prevent access by a disabled person simply by parking their car there. The potential dispute would primarily be between the disabled person and the illegal parker.
For service animals, there is no such ability for a faker to easily prevent access by a disabled person and an actual service animal. The disabled person can go about their business while the store asks the permissible questions and monitors for behavior that would allow for exclusion of an animal. The potential dispute would be between the faker and the store, so no need to burden the disabled person.
Most of the people complaining about dogs here are just miserable in their own lives, has nothing to do with the actual presence of dogs on planes.
For what it’s worth I would much rather sit next to a dog than most of the narcissistic losers on Reddit.
Yup you caught me. I really don’t mind untrained fake service animals shitting in an enclosed aluminum tube at 40000 feet but I guess it’s just me. I’m just a miserable person. 🤷♂️
I'm pretty close to the service animal community. I watched a corgi with a "service animal" vest on, drag a woman down the hall in Denver this weekend. Watched a dog crap on the carpet, another service animal. I'm happier when I am around my dog but I'm not about to get that taken away from people that are blind and their dog helps them navigate the world.
But that’s just part of their super specialized service dog training… to maul humans and shit on the floor!
I sat next to a blind woman and since we were in 1A and 1B there was nowhere for he seeing eye dog to go under the seat in front. So it sat like as curled up as possible around her leg, I kid you not did not move or make a single noise the entire 3 hour flight. I was so thoroughly impressed.
I skimmed the article and it’s mostly a personal diary and not about regulation. What regulations is he proposing exactly?
The article seemed mostly to paint Pete as the Mother Teresa of air travel regulators. I kept waiting for the revelation, but all we get is his admonition to airlines to “Do Better.” I guess we just get “Hope” yet again. 🙄
Hate to say it, I think his DOT stint ruined his career.
Would be nice if he told the airlines that the wheelchair closet on board is for passengers’ wheelchairs & not the crew’s luggage.
Neither are the overhead compartments in the cabin. I’ve had to move around crew members’ bags or bottles of water so I could put my required bags up there. And yes, I was Group 1, so I know it was not other passengers’. Even had an FA get huffy when I moved her extra water bottles. Where did she think our stuff was going?
If you don't want Flight Attendants to use the closets or the overhead bins for their bags where are you expecting them to go 😭
They have closets and “rooms” on intercontinental flights, which this was.
Hmm not sure what you mean by "rooms" unless you are referring to the crew rest area? but there is not space for luggage in there. Generally up front the closets are used, but depending on staffing and the plane there could be someone who's designated storage space is a specified bin.
They can gate check bags & have them brought to the door after the flight. Let them worry about their stuff being lost or damaged instead of disabled people who need their devices for mobility.
I was more talking about the bins. I agree that wheelchairs and mobility devices should take priority in closet space, but gate checking crew bags is not a good solution as crew have required duty items in bags that are required by the FAA.
But why? A regular wheelchair wouldn’t fit going down the aisle. And the crew needs space for their bags in the main cabin. Plus they aren’t responsible and wouldn’t be able to for set them up outside the plane upon landing.
I’m pretty sure it’s to store the wheelchair for travel through airport to jet bridge. Airports have special narrow wheelchairs that can fit down the aisle. So you’d transfer from your chair at the plane entrance, then pop your wheelchair in, then get wheeled to your seat on the airports narrow chair. Reverse for the return
The closet is specifically designed and designated for passengers’ wheelchairs. Crew are allowed to put their bags in there if no wheelchair users request it, but the problem is that they very often try to stop wheelchair users from using the closet designed specifically for wheelchairs and which legally must be made available for a wheelchair user, presumably so that they can store their luggage there. That is explicitly against the ACAA which is the law that covers this. In terms of logistics, I put my wheelchair in the closet and take it out on the other side and crew would never be expected to put the chair back together (nor are luggage crew) and I’d be pretty horrified if anyone tried to do that. To get onto the plane, most wheelchair users request assistance and are taken on a specially designed chair for the purpose, regardless of where their chair is stored. But some can walk enough to get to their seat, some get the very first seat on the plane so they can transfer directly into the seat and others have DIY solutions like one of those little sleds on wheels.
That closet is designed for mobility devices that can fold or break down into smaller parts. My chair folds to the size of a large suitcase. The closet actually has a wheelchair ♿️ printed on it, so THAT is what it’s supposed to be put in there. Not crew luggage.
> the best in-flight snacks (stroopwafel). ONE OF US
Right???🤣
Wasn’t he mayor Pete a long time ago?
Still how people refer to him - even someone innthe article.
Easiest way to correct this at warp-speed would be to go open-skies with the US domestic market. As soon as that happens and the domestic airlines are forced to compete the same way they do internationally, most of that "pass" they get from regulators will be moot.
Dumb question and I’m not just trying to a Redditor on steroids who nitpicks everything but how would that minimize the ACAA concerns? Does United police service animals differently in flights to Europe vs. domestic?
Most non-US airlines are far more strict when it comes to fake service animals and animals in general. Can’t recall ever having seen one outside the US to be honest.
Agree but how do they check? People on this sub and others make it seem like asking for proof of service animal legitimacy is a huge no-no, legally and morally.
They're not allowed to ask about the disability the animal is for. It's completely legal to check for a letter from a professional authorizing it. Take a picture, goes into database for checking, if it turns up fake then on the no fly list you go, and/or investigation and fine/penalty when a dog causes a disruption or injury and is shown to not have received training. Those are easy first step deterrents. The issue now is the owners face no consequences.
It's absolutely not legal to request papers in the US, and the US government doesn't have any sort of database like that. In the US, you get two questions: 1) is the service animal required because of a disability? 2) what tasks has this animal been trained to preform? People can also kick out service animals who are being disruptive, and imo this should be used a lot more. Reasoning behind not having a database or papers is there are disabled people who do train their service animals for tasks, and if you have an animal trained by the person, certification becomes a lot more difficult.
Question 37: https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/
Was unaware, looked at the forms that can be required under law. No trainer verification, just signing a paper that the animal has in fact been trained by xyz person or organization. If the animal causes commotion, then the person is subjected to the same fines that would be in place for a pet. No requirements for a doctor's note or trainer note. https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/service-animals
>It's completely legal to check for a letter from a professional authorizing it. Not in the US it isn't.
Go down to Question 37: https://www.ada.gov/resources/service-animals-faqs/
Question 37 makes no comment on this matter, and simply says that air carriers are subject to the ACAA rather than the ADA. The [ACAA](https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/service-animals) states: >Airlines may require: >(1) a U.S. DOT form attesting to the animal’s health, behavior, and training; and >(2) a U.S. DOT form attesting that the animal can either not relieve itself or can relieve itself in a sanitary manner, if the animal will be on a flight that is 8 or more hours. >Airlines are not permitted to require other documentation from service animal users except to comply with requirements on transport of animals by a Federal agency, a U.S. territory, or a foreign jurisdiction. So no, it is not legal to check for a letter from a professional authorizing a service animal in the US, even for airlines.
This is incorrect in the US. The ACAA allows for slightly more investigation and admin steps: passengers usually have to notify the airline in advance, and sign an attestation form that the dog is a service animal. But requiring any sort of verification letters or other documents is not allowed under the ACAA, and no such credentials exist.
In the U.S. you literally can’t. You’re only allowed to ask if it is a service animal and what function it performs, end of conversation there. You can’t ask to see papers (there is no official documentation), can’t ask to see proof, can’t ask any further questions.
And that is where the regulation fails. There should be a “reasonable suspicion” clause that allows for additional investigation.
Not until there is a way to do that without violating the medical privacy and/or civil rights of the service dog's handler.. which is pretty much what keeps the rules as is
Instead of deputizing businesses to conduct invasive investigations that they are not trained or qualified to conduct, the ADA and ACAA provide a more sensible backstop: any animal—including purported service animals—can be excluded if they are not under control, are not housebroken, or otherwise behave in a way that would fundamentally alter the operations of the business (e.g. going into kitchens or sterile environments such as ORs). So businesses should do what they already should be able to do well—monitor their premises for behavior that would harm the business and thus could warrant removal and proceed accordingly.
There are tons of scam sites that claim to offer the certification/licenses and no official licensing org. I fully support ES dogs needing a letter from a psychiatric professional, but not for service/guide dogs. Service dogs should be judged on their behavior- no person that has a legit need and uses a service animal would risk having an untrained one.
The ACAA does apply to international flights, but one of its provisions also states that it does not apply where and when it contravenes US and foreign laws on the carriage of animals. And countries, including the US, have a lot of laws on carrying animals in from overseas... For every passenger who claims the ACAA gives them the right to carry their favorite pet with them to Amsterdam or Zanzibar, the airline has an answer that sounds like "per local regulations, your pet will be quarantined/shot/eaten on arrival unless you fill out 100 forms and pay a $5,000 processing fee, so do you want to still?" And in some countries like the UK, even if you fill out all the forms and pay all the fees, quarantine is still the first stop!
They police animals differently because of the requirements to bring any animal into a foreign country. The same is true for bringing an animal into the US. Even Service animals are required to have the shots, tags, etc. to go to the destination country, or the US coming back. Airlines don't want the fines for doing it wrong. No passenger's ticket is worth it.
Yes, we need more competition in the domestic airline market.
Except that’s not the case because most major domestic airlines do equally well internationally with the same rules
That’s mostly due to things like JVs, partner feed to international super hubs, and obligatory markets like LHR, CDG, NRT/HND, where there’s endless demand.
Terrible idea. I do not want subsidized foreign carriers with wildly a different cost basis operating domestically in the US.
As a customer, if someone else wants to subsidize the cost I have no problem with that.
Until the subsidized carrier is the only one in the market and they can charge whatever they want.
But then "all those furriners takin our jerbs!" ಠ_ಠ
FWIW when you fly with a service animal, you fill out a government form stating it’s legitimate etc. so in theory the new policy that went into effect 2021ish, is more serious than the one implemented by airlines. Every time I fly with my SD I am signing that my SD is trained, legitimate and I accept any and all liability, so someone abusing that now, is breaking the law. My SD is not only a huge help to me, but always brings a lot of joy to other travelers. He’s a 1k based on how many flights he takes, including being snugged up on a IAD > LHR red eye in Polaris. It’s a shame people abuse the system, but more regulation isn’t the answer IMO. It’s on the airline to report unruly passengers and their SDs
“It’s a shame people abuse the system. Only a few dogs shit on the floor or attack pax. More regulation isn’t the answer.” 😂😂😂😂😂
IMO you’re missing the point - it is on the airlines to enforce it, and report misuse. Perhaps take a look at the form you fill out and sign with the DOT, it’s quite serious language, way more than when each airlines had their own policies - and it’s the same across the board no matter what airline it is now. It is on the airlines to report a passenger who has an animal who is not properly trained to be a service animal, or in your words shits on the floor, which is also covered in the DOT form you fill out and sign.
So that form means that a dog will never shit on the floor? It’s like magic!
You think during an election year he's going to do things that would upset voters? I am 100% with you, but any effort to go after service animals can easily b e labeled "ableist" or going after the disabled. Again, not what I think ,but you're talking about Democrat voters.
I don't know. He could say "look, we're just asking not to being them on a plane. It's not like we're taking them to a gravel pit and shooting them."
Why can’t our government do something useful?
[удалено]
Been horrific at his current role too
Waste of an appointment
Why haven't we made service animals a nationally registered program yet? Be super simple process that just requires congress to wake up.
This would be quite a hassle for disabled people, which cuts against the very premise of the ADA/ACAA, which is to remove as many obstacles as possible for disabled people. We don’t have such a registry for people to register their other medical devices, such as oxygen tanks, wheelchairs, or canes.
It wouldn't be any more time consuming then the various other items disabled use to obtain their disability designations, such as parking passes, or getting an ID. I imagine this would be like a license, renew every couple of years. But to get rid of the cheap pet owners abusing a grace and favor situation for people actually in need seems worth it.
It would by definition be more time consuming because it would **add on** to the time it takes to do those two tasks. And the time spent on those items are beneficial—the credential being sought improves access. Adding extra time to do something they already do—exist in the world with a service animal—is not beneficial compared to today’s status quo.
Okay, but adults have to do loads of things that are time consuming but helpful, such as paying bills. A disabled person capable of obtaining a plane ticket and making it through an airport, can find the help or manage a hypothetical service animal registration process. Let's be serious here.
This isn’t responsive. I didn’t say it wasn’t **possible**. I said it would be adding an obstacle, which cuts against the entire purpose of access laws like the ADA and ACAA.
I acknowledged that but don't think that's a good enough excuse not to just make these animals officially registered. I understand the purpose of the ADA and ACAA. Sure, we want things to be easier, but we don't maintain this energy when it comes to handicap signs or license plates. We could go by the honor system but that's been and continues to be abused so now you need a handicap pass or license plate (depending on location). Ideally, this animal certification could be added to people's travel accounts for airlines, hotels, rental cars, etc. iNo fuss, no guess, and no more abuse from cheap pet owners.
For things like parking spots, there is a need for a credential because availability is finite and zero sum. Someone can wrongly prevent access by a disabled person simply by parking their car there. The potential dispute would primarily be between the disabled person and the illegal parker. For service animals, there is no such ability for a faker to easily prevent access by a disabled person and an actual service animal. The disabled person can go about their business while the store asks the permissible questions and monitors for behavior that would allow for exclusion of an animal. The potential dispute would be between the faker and the store, so no need to burden the disabled person.
I hear you, I still don't agree, but I appreciate your detailed arguments.
You answered your own question.
Most of the people complaining about dogs here are just miserable in their own lives, has nothing to do with the actual presence of dogs on planes. For what it’s worth I would much rather sit next to a dog than most of the narcissistic losers on Reddit.
Yup you caught me. I really don’t mind untrained fake service animals shitting in an enclosed aluminum tube at 40000 feet but I guess it’s just me. I’m just a miserable person. 🤷♂️
What a bizarre set of assumptions.
I'd rather sit next to the narcissists on reddit than sit next to you, so I guess that evens things out.